personal hygiene, dignity, and economic diversity among
TRANSCRIPT
Published by Research Institute for Humanity and NatureSanitation Value Chain
Research Report
https://doi.org/10.34416/svc.00019 J-STAGE Advance published date: June 19, 2020
Personal Hygiene, Dignity, and Economic Diversity among Garbage Workers in an Urban Slum
of Indonesia
Akira SAI1,6, Radhitiya AL FURQAN2, Ken USHIJIMA3,6, Umi HAMIDAH4,6, Mayu IKEMI5,6, Widyarani4,6, Neni SINTAWARDANI4,6, Taro YAMAUCHI1,6
1 Graduate School of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Japan2 WISE - WASH in Southeast Asia, Indonesia
3 Building Research Department, Hokkaido Research Organization, Japan4 Research Unit for Clean Technology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia
5 Department of Tourism, Sapporo International University, Japan6 Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Japan
AbstractAlthough numerous studies have argued that sanitation workers play a significant role in the existing
sanitation system while being at the cost of their health and dignity in an inappropriate work environment,
they are often socially ostracized, and hence understudied to date. This study aimed to examine the current
state of garbage workers, who engage in unloading and sorting garbage along with a particular focus on
exploring personal hygiene, dignity, and socioeconomic diversity. This study examined these aspects in a
sample of seven garbage workers in an urban slum of Indonesia through participatory and interview surveys.
The results showed that there were several particular sanitation-related issues affecting workers: wetness
(e.g., menstrual products and animal corps), dirtiness, and hazardous garbage (e.g., medical syringes and
broken glasses), which contributed to serious health-risk exposures. Participants reported high levels of
feeling of safety and potential health-risk awareness; however, this study also demonstrated low levels
of risk-controlling behaviors, representing no proper safety gears caused by two unique factors: physical
discomfort and work inefficiency. Results also revealed the diversity in income generation accompanied
by that participants work in the exclusive circle comprising family members, which may implicate their
economic affluence. While dignity in/at work was entrenched in some workers in the context of social abuse,
reframing process (e.g., affirmation) and hierarchical comparisons helped them experience their value in/
at work. These findings need to be discussed in relation to past and recent studies in other economically
developing countries for a better understanding of this population.
Keywords: garbage worker, occupational condition, socioeconomic status, personal hygiene, dignity, urban slum
IntroductionAchieving improved sanitation is a central determinant of assessing people’s wellbeing (WHO 2018) as
championed by Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6) by the United Nations aiming to “by 2030, achieve access
to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all”.1) Prior to this international endorsement of the emphasis
1) 70/1. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development”, United Nations, 21 October 2015. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2019)
Sanitation Value Chain2
on sanitation, a considerable number of readers of one of the leading medical journals, British Medical Journal, have chosen the introduction of clean water and sewage disposal representing “the sanitary revolution” as the most
important medical milestone since 1840 (Ferriman 2007). This clearly indicates that sanitation is an important
dimension in understanding and evaluating health in everyday life. According to World Health Organization
(WHO), sanitation generally refers to “the provision of facilities and services for the safe management of human
excreta from the toilet to containment and storage and treatment onsite or conveyance, treatment and eventual
safe and use disposal” (WHO 2019a). Furthermore, its broad definition covers “safe management of solid waste
and animal waste”, simultaneously suggesting that sanitation workers (e.g., garbage collectors and waste pickers/
scavengers) may play a significant role in sanitation chain, and hence more studies targeting this population would
be important to be addressed in terms of their social significance and worth.
In contrast with the worldwide trend in focusing attention on sanitation, much less is known about people
engaging in the existing system, that is, the current state of sanitation workers regardless of their essential roles. In
this regard, WHO displays that although they “bridge the gap between sanitation infrastructure and the provision of
sanitation services”, these populations are “often at the cost of their dignity, safety, health, and living conditions”
but “far too often invisible, unquantified, and ostracized” (WHO 2019b). Studies have shown that, in urban
in developing countries, municipal solid waste management has been a massive challenge in multiple aspects
compared to the waste management situation in industrialized countries (Medina 2005; Rodic et al. 2010). In
this existing issue, recycling of municipal solid wastes in cities in economically developing countries is mainly
dependent on informal waste recovery by scavengers, simultaneously showing that 2% of the populations in Asia
and Latin America engage in waste picking to make ends meet (Medina 2000; Wilson et al. 2009 Gunsilius et al.
2011). Generally, these people as referred above are known as “waste pickers”, “scavengers” or “rag pickers”, who
engage in collecting, sorting, and recovering materials that are deemed to be waste for reuse or recycling (Medina
2000; Wilson et al. 2006). In this respect, waste disposal sites (i.e., garbage collecting sites) are considered to be
places where all forms of garbage come from urban and industrial and commercial areas, and that is, exposure to
wide-ranging health risks along with improper safety procedures/gear would be a serious issue to be concerned and
addressed by concerning authorities (Cunningham et al. 2012; Amegah and Jaakkola 2016; de Diana et al. 2018).
In a study (Matter et al. 2013), socioeconomic aspects such as high unemployment rate and a considerable
number of urban poor are suggested to be the key contributors to these informal recycling activities. In this
context, Montgomery (2008) argued that more than half of the entire population in the world lives in urban areas,
which is accompanied by that over half of the residents in low- and middle-income counties will reside in cities by
2030. This situation contributes to the fact that poverty such as slums in these urbanized areas is also increasingly
seen (Pradhan 2017). Slums are characterized as crowding population density in residential areas, environmentally
fragile and socially marginalized (Wratten 1995; Nolan 2015). Indeed, urban growth accompanied by a rapidly
increased population and the urbanization of poverty has been faced with inadequate capacity in provision of
sufficient services in water, sanitation and garbage collection (Yach et al. 1990), which may explain significance
of people engaging in garbage work.
In addition to potential physical risks in unsafe and unhealthy working conditions and the increase in urban poor
as discussed earlier, the UN has also indicated social stigmatization in SDG 82) as an important issue to address,
which simultaneously implicates that self-esteem and dignity of workers are another important dimension to
2) 70/1. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development”, United Nations, 21 October 2015. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2019)
Sanitation Value Chain 3
explore. Indeed, some study raised awareness that these populations live in both physically and socially hostile
environment (Wilson et al. 2009). In the extreme case, in a work by Medina (2000), scavengers were socially
abused through a “social-cleansing” campaign that was once aimed to expel them out of neighborhood by
some paramilitary groups. While there are a range of perceptions regarding the concept of workplace dignity
in a Western context, such as decent work conditions (e.g., paychecks and terms) and self-related aspects (e.g.,
equality, worth, autonomy, respect, and satisfaction) (Berg and Frost 2005; Lucas et al. 2013), Hodson (2001:
3) placed an emphasis on establishing (1) self-worth and (2) self-respect and (3) acquisition of respect from
others. Bolton (2007: 8, original italics) highlighted these dimensions as discussed above more differentially
and comprehensively: the study described that dignity in work may be understood as meaningful and intriguing
along with “responsible autonomy”, socially acknowledged esteem and respect while platforms offering fair
treatment (i.e., opportunity), “collective and individual voice, safe and healthy working conditions, secure terms
of employment and just rewards” would help to attain dignity at work.
This study aims to extend our understanding of garbage workers’ dignity in/at work by considering workers’ fear
of negative appearance evaluation (FNAE). According to Watson and Friend (1969), fear of negative evaluation
represents one’s apprehension and distress over others’ evaluations or negative evaluations towards the person.
Given this global concept, Thomas et al. (1998) have extended the general understanding of FNE by developing a
new measure (Fear of Negative Appearance Evaluation Scale: FNAES) based on Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation
Scale (Leary 1983) to explore relationships with appearance-related dimensions (i.e., body image). A follow-up test
of this newly created measure was conducted, which demonstrated its relationships with a wide range of dimensions
such as social physique anxiety, body image, eating attitude, and mood (Lundgren et al. 2004). In a recent study,
FNAE has been significantly associated with cosmetic surgery attitudes among midlife women, showing its extensive
usefulness in examining unique dimensions (Dunaev et al. 2018). To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies
have extended the measure in the context of dignity in a specific population as garbage workers. In this sense, this
study will add to this literature as discussed earlier that may warrant further test in the other diverse populations.
These situations in earlier discussion may lead to a proposition that, garbage workers are vulnerable to lower self-
esteem and dignity compared to the others in/at different works. This is an important dimension to explore because,
in a specific environment as a slum constituting urban that is often neglected and out of reach of local authorities
and communities along with economic impoverishment (UN-HABITAT Urban Secretariat and Shelter Branch
2002), ostracism and social ridicule may persist and augment in the specific population (e.g., garbage collecting
sites) due to the nature of their work. Therefore, examining the current state of garbage workers multidimensionally
is also important from a practical point of view, as it may identify people that require targeted intervention.
In the present study, we aimed to examine personal hygiene, dignity, and economic diversity of sanitation
workers (i.e., garbage workers) in urban slum of Indonesia. To the best of our knowledge, no existing studies
have directly addressed this specific population by adding participation (i.e., engagement in the same work as
workers’) to interview survey. That is, lack of empirical research would be one of the main limitations of this
current body of research on drawing a richer picture of the current conditions of these workers. Based on this,
this work specifically explored potential issues related to sanitation and health, and wellbeing of garbage workers,
along with three hypotheses as follows:
(1) Garbage workers would be exposed to an inappropriate work environment and hence a range of health risks
on a daily basis due to the inherent unpleasant nature of their work.
(2) Socioeconomic affluence would be restricted among garbage workers.
(3) The current work environment as well as the nature of the occupation may contribute to low levels of dignity
of garbage workers in/at work.
Sanitation Value Chain4
1. Method1.1. Participants
In this study, seven participants (garbage sorters) were recruited at a temporal collection site (Tempat
Penampungan Sementara: TPS) in Rukun Warga (RW)—a community association comprising several Rukun
Tetangga as (RT, neighborhood association)—of some district (i.e., slum) in Bandung (state) in West Java
Province, Indonesia. A limited number of workers were selected as participants for this preliminary study as these
workers are the members who work at a temporal collecting site as referred above on a daily basis along with
age diversities. Although the definition of a slum is heterogeneous by country, state and city (Nolan 2015), the
area where the research was conducted is generally considered as a slum constituting an urban area of Bandung
particularly in terms of residential crowding (Otsuka et al. 2018).
This work comprising actual participation in what garbage workers engage in and interview surveys was
conducted to participants in the end of August in 2019, which lasted seven days. Prior to this study, a local
authority and participants were approached by a principal investigator in advance and were given a full explanation
that the research was aimed at obtaining general information of garbage workers and investigating specifically
the individual’s values towards sanitation and health. For ethical procedure, this study was conducted under
supervision of Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) that is empowered by Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) with Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) in Japan.
1.2. MeasuresThe present study was conducted based on mainly two methods: participatory survey and interview survey
coupled with questionnaires.
Participatory survey
Participatory survey here refers to engagement in garbage collecting with sanitation workers aiming at examining
two following aspects:
1) How garbage workers perceive and behave towards sanitation.
2) Whether they wear safety gear and how they physically cope with sanitation-related issues.
Interview survey
Self-made questionnaire survey coupled with established body image scale was subsequently administered
to participants by means of interview. Questionnaires were conceptualized and developed through multiple
times of discussion with Indonesian and Japanese researchers who have experiences in targeting garbage
workers in their previous studies. Throughout the interviews, utmost attention was paid to items as they
contain sensitive expressions so as to avoid unconsciously emotional discomfort. Besides, with the aim of
protecting privacy, every term associated with study participants in the present study was deleted (from each
figure as well).
Questionnaires comprise the following contents:
1) Demographics (age, ethnicity, parents’ occupation, partner’s occupation, area people are from and years of
working at TPS).
2) Satisfaction/dissatisfaction towards sanitation-related issues and a work environment (sample item: Do you
feel annoyed by odor while working?). In this term, we asked participants on how potential sanitation-related
issues at garbage collecting site affect (affected) them through interviews. That is, interviewers asked each
interviewee on the previous and current states of the disturbance level of these issues.
Sanitation Value Chain 5
3) Self-consciousness of what others think of his/her job (sample item: Do you care how people think of
your job?).
4) Work gear (sample item: What do you usually wear to your work place?).
5) Self-consciousness (awareness) of health risk exposures (sample item: Do you think of your potential risk for
exposure to various diseases while working?).
6) Body image (FNAES) (Lundgren et al. 2004).
Fear of Negative Appearance Evaluation Scale (FNAES)
The six item scale was developed from the modified Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (Leary 1983); the
instrument asked respondents to rate the extent to which the one feels fear of his/her negative appearance (sample
item 1: I am concerned about what others think of my appearance, sample item 2: When I meet new people, I
wonder what they think about my appearance) on a 5-Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Extremely). In previous
studies (Lundgren et al. 2004), FNAES demonstrated significant relationships with a variety of body image and
social anxiety scales, potentially showing its utility in diverse fields. The present study used this instrument to
assess garbage workers’ wellbeing.
Since Bahasa Indonesia is an official language and extensively spoken in Indonesia, each item of the
questionnaires that were developed in English were all translated into a local language by some fellow Indonesian
researchers who are fluent in both English and Bahasa Indonesia when administered to the participants. Hence,
the interview was conducted by both English and Bahasa Indonesia speaking researchers in order to bridge the
language gap between interviewers and interviewees.
2. Results and Discussion2.1. Characteristics of study participants and garbage collecting sites (TPS)
Table 1 shows the descriptive characteristics of study participants. The mean age of participants was 35.6,
ranging between the ages of 23 and 56 years old. More than half of the participants live in the outskirts of
Bandung. Results showed that parents of some participants were garbage workers (sorters) that are shown by two
for father’s and one for mother’s, respectively. In this regard, strikingly, the results regarding partner’s occupation
also revealed that a partner (spouse) of three participants engages as a garbage worker at the moment. The findings
of the study suggest that people may engage in garbage sorting as a family business (Wilson et al. 2006) which is
supported by some participants mentioning in the interview that they were asked to join garbage-working forces
by their parents or spouses and the fact that some of the workers engage in garbage sorting with their parents,
spouses, siblings or children. Five participants were shown to engage in their current job as a garbage sorter for
more than four years.
Sanitation Value Chain6
2.2. Cash flows at garbage collecting sites (TPS) Figure 1 shows the cash flow at TPS. Initial payment will be made to garbage collectors (Indonesian Rupiah
(IDR) 10,000/household/month) and RW 02 from each RT (IDR 3,000, 5,000 or 7,500). Cash that is generated in
this payment by these two stakeholders (RW 02: 100,000/RW/month, garbage collectors: IDR 10,000/cart/trip)
will go to a person (garbage sorter) in charge at TPS, which will subsequently be distributed to each stake holder
as follows: truck driver (IDR 500,000/month), 20 garbage sorters (IDR 50,000/person/month), RW 05 for security
(IDR 1,300,000/month), Supervisor from PDK (a government-owned company in providing cleaning services:
IDR 150,000/month), a junkshop owner located next to TPS (IDR 600,000/month), and vice head of TPS (IDR
250,000/month).
Figure 2 shows income sources of TPS workers. Payment and cash transaction occur in the following scenes:
(1) payment from each RW as also shown in Figure 1 (IDR 50,000/person/month), (2) unloading garbage from
collectors (IDR 10,000-20,000/cart/trip), (3) unloading garbage from residents (IDR 5,000–20,000/garbage), and
(4) selling separated garbage to a junk shop (IDR 30,000/day). Figure 3 breaks down how workers at TPS generate
income in the process of unloading and sorting garbage from collectors. Some study argues that income generation
is also dependent on the levels of sorting differentiation; according to Wilson et al. (2006), for example, the value
of plastic can be higher when it is separated into multiple categories rather than grouped into one major category.
ItemAge (mean, min, max) 35.6, 23, 56Ethnicity (n, %)
Javanese 0 0Sundanese 7 100Others 0 0
Mother’s occupation (n, %)Housewife 4 57Garbage sorter 1 15Farmer 1 14Others 1 14
Father’s occupation (n, %)Construction worker 3 43Garbage sorter 2 29Craftsman 1 14Others 1 14
Partner’s occupation (n, %)Garbage sorter 3 43Housewife 3 43Not yet married 1 14
Origin (n, %)Cicalengka 2 29Cipeundeuy 2 29Sumedang 1 14Bandung 1 14Kiaracondong 1 14
Years working at TPS (n, %)< 4 years 2 29>= 4 years 5 71
Table 1. Characteristics of participants at garbage collecting site (TPS) (n = 7).
Sanitation Value Chain 7
This sorting skill was confirmed in a veteran at TPS by the interviewer (Figure 3), which may contribute to
different levels of income among workers that warrants further investigation. In this sense, some study conducted
in Bangladesh suggests that promoting segregation at the household level may preserve the value of recyclable
materials and also contribute to reducing substantial amounts of unnecessary wastes (Matter et al. 2013), which
suggests that this may provide workers with better access to clean and sortable recyclables that could potentially
elevate the value and income accompanied by improved environmental conditions. However, the study in the
country above also argues that increasing refuse segregation at household level could provide better access to
recyclables for the other actors involved in waste business such as recyclables buyer and waste collector—if
they exist—, which may contribute to lowering waster pickers’ income (i.e., garbage workers at TPS) due to
less valuable items in the mixed waste. On the other hand, a study in Bangalore, India (Shah 1999) suggests that
alternative employment such as working at a recycling center through communitarian interventions for further
segregation and composting could be a way to provide these workers with more beneficial elements such as
less social stigmatization (harassment), increased social visibility (social recognition), and stable income. In this
regard, further studies will be necessary to explore potential actors involved in waste business to further explore
economic aspects of garbage workers.
Figure 2. Income sources of garbage workers (TPS).
Figure 1. Cash flow at garbage collecting site (TPS).
RT
RW 02
IDR* 10,000/household/month
IDR 374,000/monthClass 1: IDR 3,000/household/monthClass 2: IDR 5,000/household/monthClass 3: IDR 7,500/household/month
IDR 374,000/month
IDR 100,000/RW/month
Garbage collectors
PD Kebersihan(PDK: local authority)
Truck driver(IDR 500,000/month)
20 Garbage separators (IDR 50,000/person/month)
Security fee for RW 05(IDR 1,300,000/month)
Supervisor from PDK(IDR 150,000/month)
Junkshop owner(IDR 600,000/month)
Vice head of TPS(IDR 250,000/month)
TPS workers(sorter)
3 classes
RT
RT
TPS workers(separator)
Payment from each RW(IDR* 50,000/person/month)
Unloading payment from garbage collectors(IDR 10,000-20,000/cart/trip)
Unloading payment from residents(IDR 5,000-20,000/garbage)
Selling separated garage to junk shop(IDR 30,000/day)
*IDR: Indonesian Rupiah, 1USD = 15,735 IDR
*IDR: Indonesian Rupiah, 1USD = 15,735 IDR
Sanitation Value Chain8
2.3. Participants’ values on sanitation and work environmentTable 2 shows sanitation-related values of study participants that comprise satisfaction towards work environment,
awareness of health-risk exposure, and self-consciousness on what others think of his/her job. Firstly, the most
annoying sanitation issue was wetness (3), which is followed by odor (2), dirtiness (1) and others (1). Wetness that
is referred here shows the state of garbage representing liquids or a rain puddle. Secondly, as explained earlier in
the method, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they feel disturbed by each of three main possible
sanitation issues that are wetness, odor and dirtiness before and after they started working at TPS. As to wetness,
more than half (4) of the workers reported that they were initially disturbed by the issue, whereas six reported no
disturbance currently. As to odor, while three study participants answered being negatively affected, six reported
no disturbance currently. On the other hand, disturbance levels of dirtiness remained the same (5) in the case of
both before and after the participants started working at TPS, respectively. Some respondents supported this result
answering that they were already determined and were aware of the horrible work environment in advance before
they engaged in their current job, which may moderate the sensation of disturbance. Though wetness and odor
seem more likely to influence the workers, compared to dirtiness, these two issues may be moderated in the similar
manner to dirtiness by their determination and them reporting getting accustomed to the issues. While individual
voices through interviews are important to note, these findings need to be treated with caution. In this term, workers’
preparedness is a reflection of denials of dignity, endorsing subservience related to social taint that could contribute
to lower levels of social esteem in dignity at work (Ashforth and Kreiner 1999; Bolton 2007; Hamilton et al. 2019).
Figure 3. (a) Cash generation in unloading and sorting process at TPS. (taken by the authors: A.S., K. U. and M. I.)(b) Sorted waste. (taken by the authors: M. I.)
IDR*: 5,000 – 20,000
collecting (collectors & residents)
sorting for selling to
the junk shop
unloading(sorters)
IDR: 30,000
(a)
(b)
*IDR: Indonesian Rupiah, 1USD = 15,735 IDR
Sanitation Value Chain 9
Item n %
Most annoying sanitation issues
Wetness 3 43
Odor 2 29
Dirtiness 1 14
Others 1 14
Disturbance level (initial state)
Wetness
Never 3 43
Sometimes 2 28
Always 2 29
Odor
Never 4 57
Sometimes 2 29
Always 1 14
Dirtiness
Never 5 71
Sometimes 2 29
Always 0 0
Figure 4 shows that the workers were observed to engage in unloading and sorting garbage without proper
safety gear to guard themselves from being exposed to every possible sanitation issue, which may support their
rationale as written above; some workers were also observed to eat food barehanded without washing (Figure
4(a)). Specifically, despite the fact that the workers raised two garbage as the most dangerous representing
medical syringes (4) and broken glasses (2) (Figure 4(b)) that are characterized by edgy, and animal corps (4)
and menstrual products (3) as most uncomfortable to touch, the workers do not wear masks, gloves nor boots
(Figure 4) based on the main reason that these gear can cause physical discomfort such as itchiness and heat, and
hence inefficiency in work. In reality as shown in Figure 4(c), some worker was exposed to injuries in his foot
that was caused by broken glasses. The worker headed back to work after being provided first aid with water and
cloth to wrap up his wounded foot without sterilization. This situation implicates low levels of risk controlling,
which may also contribute to subsequent risks such as infection. In contrast to these seemingly inappropriate
work styles, all workers but one reported the feeling of safety while working (Table 2). The other workers have
mentioned in the interview to support this proportion that they can be precautious in working even without proper
safety gear. However, the reality demonstrated that being self-conscious/aware of potential health risk exposures
seems unlikely to compensate for not wearing proper safety gear in the context of potential chances of getting
wounded. Taken together, it is reasonable to expect that their current work conditions may predispose them to be
frequently exposed to wide-ranging health risks as shown in respiratory diseases, physical wounds and the other
communicable diseases that are physically preventable with knowledge (Kuijer et al. 2010; Hagemeyer et al.
2013; Zolnikov et al. 2019). The findings may warrant proper interventions by policy makers in terms of workers’
decent self-awareness on avoiding/controlling risks.
Table 2-1. Sanitation-related values of study participants: satisfaction towards work environment, awareness of health-risk exposure, and what others think of his/her job (n = 7).
Sanitation Value Chain10
Item n %
Disturbance level (current state)
Wetness 6 86
Never 1 14
Sometimes 0 0
Always
Odor
Never 6 86
Sometimes 1 14
Always 0 0
Dirtiness
Never 5 71
Sometimes 2 29
Always 0 0
Work cloth
Provided safety gear 0 0
Something okay to be stained 7 100
Others 0 0
Where to get work cloth
Home 0 0
TPS 0 0
Shops 0 0
Others (given by residents) 7 100
Feeling of safety on working
Never 1 14
Sometimes 3 43
Always 3 43
The most dangerous garbage
Medical syringes 4 57
Broken glasses 2 29
Skewers 1 14
Broken cans 0 0
The most disgusting garbage
Animal corps 4 57
Menstrual products 3 43
Awareness of health-risk exposure
Never 4 57
Sometimes 2 29
Always 1 14
Table 2-2. Sanitation-related values of study participants: satisfaction towards work environment, awareness of health-risk exposure, and what others think of his/her job (n = 7).
Sanitation Value Chain 11
2.4. Participants’ values on work conditions and dignityTable 3 shows values on their work of study participants. Six out of seven participants reported the feeling of
contribution to the society such as responsibility in cleaning the area for residents and strikingly, motivation to be
a garbage worker, respectively. In this regard, respondents raised three particular reasons to be a garbage worker
that are providing for family (2), no other jobs available (4), and freedom in work styles (1). However, almost
half of the workers (4) also answered that they care about how others think of their job accompanied by the result
that mean scores of appearance consciousness scale were 3.26. Some participants rated more than 4 (Figure 5)
given higher scores indicating higher levels of fear of negative appearance. This may have a connotation that some
workers’ self-esteem is more likely to be lower than those who take other jobs. In this support, some workers
mentioned underestimation and lack of respect from others in interviews. This is in line with the United Nations’
concern on their dignity and actual case of social abuse (Medina 2000). Although no data available to support
the supposition, the issue of dignity and physically horrible work environment may have contributed to six out of
seven people willing to have a different job.
Despite the findings as described earlier, it is notable that some workers referred to their social role as a
garbage worker; “Keep TPS clean so that residents do not complain about its odor”, “the importance of the
current job in the community”. Taken together, while some workers’ dignity is threatened in the context of social
abuse, they may try to compensate for the negative aspects associated with their work by bringing in positive
views in the context of social significance and worth: a study with garbage workers and street cleaners from the
United Kingdom (Hamilton et al. 2019) argued that workers may attempt to transform the ways in which their
jobs are seen (i.e., social stigmatization) through reframing process as shown in infusion and/or negation of the
stigmatized aspects (Ashforth and Kreiner 1999), or affirmation of worth in/at their work. Furthermore, self-
reliance should also be noted as an important tool that may serve to maintain or assert workers’ dignity. In this
term, as described earlier, two interviewees indeed mentioned providing for their family as one of the reasons to
Figure 4. (a) Current situation of the work environment at TPS. (taken by the authors: M. I.)(b) Current situation of the work environment at TPS: broken glasses. (taken by the authors: A. S.)
(c) Current situation of the work environment at TPS 3: health risk. (taken by the authors: A. S.)
(a)
(b) (c)
Sanitation Value Chain12
be a garbage worker. This finding is in line with a study with garbage workers in the United Kingdom, showing
that many interviewees stressed that they could financially support themselves and their family by working
(Hamilton et al. 2019). On the other hand, in the context of hierarchical esteem, one interviewee commented
freedom at work. That is, in light of the findings from a study discussed in self-reliance (Hamilton et al. 2019),
some workers may experience workplace dignity in the form of social comparisons with other people in/at
different works in a favorable way. These important dimensions may warrant further studies and discussion in
sociological contexts.
When asked the feeling of satisfaction towards income, work condition, and interpersonal relationships, more
than 70% of participants reported that they were satisfied (or at least neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with income)
with these three aspects. The results of this study can be supported by several economic facts that there are
multiple ways of generating income in reported Figure 1, 2, and 3. The workers engage in unloading and sorting
garbage process with their parents, spouses or siblings, which may assure them of capability to continuously
financially support themselves possibly with conveyance of harmony at work environment comprising close
family members. To support this supposition, as another possible factor, although some studies indicating very
low income of scavengers due to their low position in the waste-trade hierarchy (Medina 2000; Wilson et al. 2006),
the present findings also argues that scavengers may not be economically lowest; in explanation, Indonesian
government endorses the work of scavengers as economically and environmentally beneficial to the country itself
by encouraging the workers to form cooperatives and imposing a duty on imported waste materials to increase
their income (Medina 2000). However, this case should be treated with caution in terms of its generalization and
therefore further studied with more profound interviews.
Figure 5. Mean score of Fear of Negative Appearance Evaluation Scale (broken down by each participant).
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Participants
Mean score
Sanitation Value Chain 13
Item n %Feeling of responsibiity to the society
Never 1 14Sometimes 0 0Always 6 86
Care how others think of a jobNever 4 57Sometimes 3 43Always 0 0
Desire for a different jobNever 1 14Sometimes 6 86Always 0 0
Motivation to be a garbage workerNever 1 14Sometimes 0 0Always 6 86
Particular reason to be a TPS workerProvide for family 2 29No other job 4 57Freedom in working 1 14
Feeling of satisfaction Income
Never 1 14 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3 43 Always 3 43
Work condition Never 0 0 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 29 Always 5 71
Interpersonal relationships Never 0 0 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 29 Always 5 71
Table 3. Participants’ values on work conditions and worth at/in work (n = 7).
ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that there are several particular sanitation issues that affect garbage workers such as
wetness by exposure to unsanitary garbage (i.e., menstrual products and animal corps), dirtiness, and hazardous
garbage (edgy garbage) (i.e., medical syringes and broken glasses) that contributes to serious health risk exposures.
Despite the fact that the workers are often at risk of being susceptible to these reported issues, they are likely to be
problematically resilient in the context of not wearing proper work gears and depending on being self-consciously
precautious based on some physical discomfort and work inefficiency. The current situation of garbage workers
in Bandung implicates that the actual safety of sanitation forces is entrenched by multiple negative physical
consequences that are caused by unique factors which we may unlikely expect. Notably, the findings of this study
also revealed that there are multiple ways for income generation for the workers: garbage unloading, sorting
and selling activity is seemingly operated by family units, which may run counter to the social norm that these
Sanitation Value Chain14
populations are generally most socioeconomically vulnerable, and hence are confronted with inadequate capacity
to meet basic needs. Future studies are necessary to dismantle and discern these sanitation forces in terms of
their cash flows, which may help examine their actual socioeconomic abundance affecting their livelihood.
Finally, interviews that include FNAES demonstrated its wide-ranging utility by examining garbage workers’
dignity: while dignity in/at work was threatened in some workers in the context of social abuse, reframing (e.g.,
affirmation) process of their work and hierarchical comparisons with others also helped them experience their
value in/at work in terms of its social significance and value.
There are several limitations that should be considered in the extension of this work. As the first limitation of the
present work, although one of the strengths of this study is its method that incorporates participation in interview
survey, future work could generalize these findings to a wider population by examining diversities in age, gender,
cultural groups and sanitation workers (e.g., street cleaners) to develop a richer picture of garbage workers. In
this regard, although we paid utmost attention on our verbal expressions and atmosphere, some worker may have
experienced pressure to provide information that deviates from one’s individual voice. Secondly, dignity in/at
work of garbage workers should be further studied by qualitative work with both semi-structured and open-ended
interviews and discussed in more sociological contexts for fundamental understanding of the nature of their work.
In this regard, dignity should also be described in the context of men’s masculinity as this contains endurance,
which may be a significant predictor of worth in/at their work (Pomper 2010). Finally, this dignity-oriented research
could be developed in examining familial aspects representing intimate conversations as well as associations with
the other psychosocial aspects such as self-esteem and body image.
AcknowledgementsThis study is supported by “The Sanitation Value Chain: Designing Sanitation Systems as Eco-Community
Value System” Project (Project Leader: Prof. Taro Yamauchi) at Research Institute for Humanity and Nature
(RIHN, Project No. 14200107).
The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to each one of the study participants who joined this
study openhearted, and hence are hidden corresponding authors. Also, the author would like to show their heartfelt
appreciation to all the people involved in this research, particularly people at Research Institute for Humanity
and Nature and members of Laboratory of Human Ecology at Graduate School of Health Sciences, Hokkaido
University in Japan for their continued support in multiple aspects of the study.
The authors declare no interest of no conflict associated with this article.
ReferencesAmegah, A. K. and Jaakkola, J. J. 2016. Street vending and waste picking in developing countries: a long-standing
hazardous occupational activity of the urban poor. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 22(3): 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2016.1209621
Ashforth, B. E. and Kreiner, G. E. 1999. ‘How can you do it?’: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a
positive identity. Academy of Management Review 24(3): 413–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202129
Berg, P. and Frost, A. C. 2005. Dignity at work for low wage, low skill service workers. Industrial Relations 60(4):
657–682. https://doi.org/10.7202/012339ar
Bolton, S. 2007. Dimensions of dignity at work. Butterworth-Heinnemann, London.
Cunningham, R. N., Simpson, C. D. and Keifer, M. C. 2012. Hazards faced by informal recyclers in the squatter
Sanitation Value Chain 15
communities of Asunción, Paraguay. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 18(3):
181–187. https://doi.org/10.1179/1077352512Z.00000000027
de Diana, D. F., Abreu, J. S., Serafini, D. C., Ortiz, J. F., Samaniego, M. S., Aranda, A. C. and Zamorano-Ponce,
E. 2018. Increased genetic damage found in waste picker women in a landfill in Paraguay measured by comet
assay and the micronucleus test. Mutation Research – Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis 836:
19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2018.06.011
Dunaev, J. L., Schulz, J. S. and Markey, C. N. 2018. Cosmetic surgery attitudes among midlife woman: Appearance
esteem, weight esteem and fear of negative appearance evaluation. Journal of Health Psychology 23(1): 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316642249
Ferriman, A. 2007. BMJ readers choose the “sanitary revolution” as greatest medical advance since 1840. British Medical Journal 334: 111. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39097.611806.DB
Gunsilius, E., Chaturvedi, B. and Scheinberg, A. 2011. The economics of the informal sector in solid waste management. Collaborative Working Group on Solid Waste Management in Low- and Middle-income Countries
(CWG), St.Gallen. Online. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2011-cwg-booklet-economicaspects.pdf
(Accessed December 9, 2019)
Hagemeyer, O., Bunger, J., van Kampen, V., Raulf-Heimsoth, M., Drath, C., Merget, R., Bruning, T. and
Broding, H. C. 2013. Occupational Allergic Respiratory Diseases in Garbage Workers: Relevance of Molds
and Actinomycetes. Neurobiology of Respiration 788: 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6627-3_42
Hamilton, P., Redman, T. and McMurray, R. 2019. ‘Lower than a Snake’s Belly’: Discursive Constructions of
Dignity and Heroism in Low-Status Garbage Work. Journal of Business Ethics 156: 889–901. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-017-3618-z
Hodson, R. 2001. Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kuijer, P. P. F. M., Sluiter, J. K. and Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. 2010. Health and safety in waste collection: Towards
evidence-based worker health surveillance. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 53(10): 1040–1064.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20870
Leary, M. R. 1983. A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9: 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093007
Lucas, K., Kang, D. and Li, Z. 2013. Workplace dignity in a total institution: Examining the experiences of Foxconn’s
migrant workforce. Journal of Business Ethics 114(9): 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1328-0
Lundgren, J. D., Anderson, D. A. and Thompson, J. K. 2004. Fear of negative appearance evaluation of a new
construct for risk factor in the field of eating disorders. Eating Behaviors 5: 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1471-0153(03)00055-2
Matter, A., DietSchi, M. and Zurbrugg, C. 2013. Improving the informal recycling sector through segregation
of waste in the household: the case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International 38: 150–156. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.001
Medina, M. 2000. Scavenger Cooperative in Asia and Latin America. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
31(1): 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(00)00071-9— 2005. Serving the unserved: informal refuse collection in Mexico. Waste Management and Research
23(5): 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X05057698
Montgomery, M. R. 2008. The Urban Transformation of the Developing World. Science 319(5864): 761–764.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153012
Nolan, L. B. 2015. Slum Definitions in Urban India: Implications for the Measurement of Health Inequalities.
Population and Development Review 41(1): 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00026.x
Sanitation Value Chain16
Otsuka, Y., Ushijima, K., Ikemi, M., Nilawati, D., Sintawardani, N. and Yamauchi, T. 2018. Mapping of Water,
Sanitation, Hygiene and Child Health in an Urban Slam of Indonesia. Sanitation Value Chain 2(1): 27–37.
https://doi.org/10.34416/svc.00009
Pomper, D. 2010. Masculinities, the Metrosexual, and Media Images: Across Dimensions of Age and Ethnicity.
Sex Roles 63: 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9870-7
Pradhan, K. C. 2017. Unacknowledged Urbanization: New Census Towns of India. In Denis, E. and Zérah, M. H.
(eds) Subaltern Urbanisation in India. pp. 39–66. Springer, New Delhi.
Rodic, L, Scheinberg, A. and Wilson, D. C. 2010. Solid waste management in the world’s cities. UN-Habitat’s
Third Global Report on the State of Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities. Earthscan. Online. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/48199927_Solid_Waste_Management_in_the_World%27s_Cities_UN-HABITAT
(Accessed December 9, 2019)
Shah, E. 1999. Community based separation at source in Bangalore, India. In Lardinois, I. and Furedy, C. (eds)
Source separation of household waste materials. pp. 75–98. WASTE, Gouda.
Thomas, C. M., Keery, H., Williams, R. and Thompson, J. K. 1998. The fear of negative appearance evaluation scale: Development and preliminary validation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Advancement of Behavior Therapy, November, 1998. Washington DC.
UN-Habitat Urban Secretariat and Shelter Branch 2002. Expert Group Meeting on Urban Indicators: Secure
Tenure, Slums and Global Sample of Cities. Proceedings of the Urban Indicators: Secure Tenure, Slums and Global Sample of Cities. Online. https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/expert-group-meeting-urban-
indicators%5B1%5D.pdf (Accessed November 28, 2019)
Watson, D. and Friend, R. 1969. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33: 448–457. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027806
WHO (World Health Organization) 2018. Guidelines on sanitation and health. WHO, Geneva. — 2019a. Health Topics: Sanitation. WHO, Geneva.
— 2019b. Health, Safety and Dignity of Sanitation Workers. WHO, Geneva.
Wilson, D. C., Velis, C. and Cheeseman, C. 2006. Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in
developing countries. Habitat International 30(4): 797–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005
Wilson, D. C., Araba, A. O., Chinwah, K. and Cheeseman, C. R. 2009. Building recycling rates through the
informal sector. Waste Management 29(2): 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.016
Wratten, E. 1995. Conceptualizing urban poverty. Environment and Urbanization 7(1): 11–38. https://doi.
org/10.1177/095624789500700118
Yach, D., Mathews, C. and Buch, E. 1990. Urbanization and health: methodological difficulties in undertaking
epidemiological research in developing countries. Social Science and Medicine 31(4): 507–514. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90047-V
Zolnikov, T. R., Ramirez-Ortiz, D., Moraes, Hayssa., Cruvinel, V. R. N., Dominguez, A. and Galato, D. 2019.
Continued Medical Waste of Recyclable Collectors Despite Dumpsite Closures in Brazil. Journal of Health and Pollution 9(23): 190905. https://doi.org/10.5696/2156-9614-9.23.190905